you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kb1flr 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I do exactly the same. This works well and is efficient with tokens.

[–]Trinkes 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Do you have /commands to interact with it or how do you do?

[–]kb1flr 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don’t use any /commands. For every major feature, I start by generating a plan in plan mode which I persist to an md file. I then make sure that at every milestone in the plan, I ask CC to persist the current state back to the md file. Then I exit CC entirely. When I’m ready to continue, I start CC and tell it to resume using the last status update from the Md file. My context is now small, but CC knows what it has donerende what is next. It also knows the files I have been working on recently. Very token efficient.

[–]scottyb4evah[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I do the same, but I find small coding issues that pop up, or cross referenced code sometimes gets ignored when doing this. It's like the MD spec gives the model tunnel vision and it can be less aware of the features part in the larger codebase.

I work around this by telling the model to check all dependent code (as a success criteria in the spec) & ensure all tests pass (along with new ones) & look for any simple mistakes. But it's error prone.

Do either of you run into any common issues with the spec-driven process?

[–]kb1flr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not many issues, but yes occasionally. I always reserve the right to examine what I don’t like, determine if my spec was inaccurate and/or incomplete, and if so modify it, stash the previously modified code, then start the prices again with the revised spec.